I have been keeping up with the news about this sad event. I am just amazed that is even was thought up by this person, no prior criminal history. was able to buy so many guns and then just wondered though the emergency exit and back to shoot everyone.

What do you all think about this? Could their have been anything done about it?

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church appear to be on their way to protest a prayer vigil for victims of the Aurora massacre, according to tweets from members posted by Examiner.com.

Using the hashtag #ThankGodForTheShooter, Examiner.com reports members tweeted out their plans to "super picket" the candle lit prayer service, saying "God is at work in Colorado."

Almost immediately, members of the community launched a campaign on Reddit and Facebook to form a "wall of love" around the memorial service to block the group from getting close. Church member Fred Phelps Jr. said these efforts would be in vain:

Quote:

@WBCFredJr WBC in Colorado to conquer yet another "wall", just like yesterday in Columbia. #andthewallcametumblingdown! http://t.co/NeTmqnfg

Earlier this morning, the Denver Comic Con released a statement on their Facebook page urging patrons of the convention to assist in forming a human barrier in front of the service.

“If you volunteered for Denver Comic Con 2012, or any other Con, and are planning to attend tonight's vigil, please consider wearing your volunteer t-shirt. I'm asking my DCC volunteers to be prepared to help form the barrier, should Westsboro show up."

I doubt there was anything that could of been done to prevent this, other than maybe if more people were armed, they could of fought back and lessened the fatalities, then again maybe not such a great idea in a dark crowded movie theater.

We went through this in a Facebook group. No, more people armed wouldn't have made a difference.

Look, it's Colorado. You can walk through a diner anywhere in Colorado during the lunch rush, and find enough working, high-quality sidearms to outfit a SEAL team. The problem isn't that no one had a gun; half the damn room probably had a gun. But look at the scenario.

You're engrossed in a movie -- that's a big, bright rectangle boning your night vision. It's a Batman movie, so chances are you're already listening to explosions, gas cartridges and other various loud noises. An unobtrusive figure walks to roughly the middle of the bottom edge of the screen -- "down in front." Just some asshole, no cause for alarm yet. You're still not looking at him for more than a moment.

Then the figure becomes an extremely loud, harsh tangle of strobe flashes and incoming lead. Your options are:- Freeze. You'll probably die if you do this.- Hit the deck. You probably won't die if you do this.- Draw a weapon and fire back through a crowd of innocents, at a silhouetted target, with a pistol (not known for wondrous accuracy), through the muzzle flashes of incoming fire, on an elevation difference you probably did not experience on a civilian shooting range when you first sighted in your weapon. Maybe you're good with your pistol, but the guy with the assault rifle doesn't need to know what he's doing. He has lots and lots of chances to kill you -- a blind paraplegic could kill you in the same situation.

I wouldn't bet my life on it. I'd be on the deck, and I'd help ID him for the police later if I could, but none of the tactical advantages are mine, and engaging would only inflate the body count and widow my wife.

Law abiding citizens would have left it in the car, since the theater was clearly posted "no firearms allowed"

So I guess the gun lobby blames the theater for this then, eh? Since their logic has always been, "If X regarding guns isn't allowed, then criminals will do X and citizens will be defenseless for a lack of X."

Therefore..screw you, theater. You robbed citizens of their ability to defend themselves. This is all YOUR fault.

Every single one of Tranthas' arguments can be said to revolve around one factor: Lack of ability or feasibility in a gunfight. All of which can be answered with this: More training.

Just because it's a difficult situation or hard to pull off a counter-attack, the natural conclusion need not be "Well let's just not try anything, let's just lay down and assume the gunman isn't batshit insane enough to go row to row and shoot everyone pretending to be dead."

Friendly fire, more deaths, etc is not an inevitable nor even probable outcome under the right circumstances. It's just the common red herring the anti-gun folks love to use. I'm not going to say the training would be easy nor even lead to better outcomes with everyone, but it presents itself as an option to allow more guns while not necessarily sacrificing safety as a result. The idea that "more guns auto= more death" is a conclusion that relies on circumstances being the same every time.

Hey, just using their logic. They've always stuck to that line, claiming that any sort of regulation or restriction on owning or carrying guns makes us all unsafe. Ergo, they must be thinking that by not allowing guns into the theater, that they created an unsafe situation for all the patrons, no?

Hey, just using their logic. They've always stuck to that line, claiming that any sort of regulation or restriction on owning or carrying guns makes us all unsafe. Ergo, they must be thinking that by not allowing guns into the theater, that they created an unsafe situation for all the patrons, no?

I can see that point but still doesnt make it right. Having guns in the theatre would not have made the situation any better, that guy was just too well prepared.

Aw c'mon, I didn't say "guns++ == death++". I said it's a lot harder to actually defeat a prepared opponent in poor conditions than people think it is. There are folks talking on this topic who think guns are as depicted in the movies -- the hero never misses, pistols are needle-accurate to hundreds of feet, a couch blocks streams of 7.62mm, and even in the dark there's somehow enough light to see the villain's evil grin. When people simplify their argument down to "if I'd been there with my gun, I'd have killed the guy," it sounds like the kind of thing people would say when they have never seen anyone try it in real life.

Aw c'mon, I didn't say "guns++ == death++". I said it's a lot harder to actually defeat a prepared opponent in poor conditions than people think it is. There are folks talking on this topic who think guns are as depicted in the movies -- the hero never misses, pistols are needle-accurate to hundreds of feet, a couch blocks streams of 7.62mm, and even in the dark there's somehow enough light to see the villain's evil grin. When people simplify their argument down to "if I'd been there with my gun, I'd have killed the guy," it sounds like the kind of thing people would say when they have never seen anyone try it in real life.

Actually, the entire purpose of drawing your weapon is to attempt to force an attacker (or potential attacker) out their current course. The actual FIRING of the weapon is a last resort, and even then, in the hands of a trained individual, the intent isn't necessarily lethal force. I assure you, the majority of those who carry, are FAR less likely to injure others (I can dig up citations for this if you like) than an unengaged perpetrator.

Also, having lived in that area of Denver, I can tell you straight out that Denver is NOT Colorado. Denver is Diet San Francisco. So don't think it's the wild wild west there.

I agree that a weapon is, first and foremost, a device for making your enemy change his mind. It's wonderful for that purpose until drawn -- then you're done negotiating. Drawn-weapon standoffs don't really work in real life; someone's about to fire, and it had better be you.

I'm not saying that someone in a theatre in exactly this situation wouldn't or shouldn't engage; I'm just saying it probably won't help, the terrain and tactical advantages are all his. People who imagine that simply having a gun would have made the difference have not spent a lot of range hours firing on an armored target in the dark under strobelights while nearby things explode and people shriek in their ears -- oh, and it's shooting back, there's blood everywhere, and whether you're terrified or furious, unless you're military-trained, you're probably shaking like a broken dryer. Simplifying it down to "if I'd been there, I'd have shot the guy" is dangerous. "If I'd been there, and I'd been trained in counter-terrorist urban operations" I can totally get behind -- probably literally; he might be wearing armor, and I'm not because I'm at the damn movies.